View Single Post
12-09-2012, 11:16 AM
Registered User
Canadiens1958's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,606
vCash: 500
Not the Issue

Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
What better measure is there for judging the efficacy of talent evaluation? Let me know where you want to start instead.

That's high praise for a system that missed Hiller, Roloson, Backstrom, Bobrovsky, Niemi and Gustavsson. Only a division's worth of NHL starters as of a couple of seasons ago.

In any case, the draft's record makes it quite clear that it's not "easy" to predict goalies' futures based on amateur play, and that was my only point. If it were easy, we wouldn't see #1 overall picks turning out to be average, 7th rounders turning out to be legends and undrafteds having solid careers.
The issue is rather straightforward - Top Goaltenders. The goalies you list were not drafted BUT they were never chosen to represent their country at the WJC level either - considering they represent Canada, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Russia, this is a pretty good indication that there was a consensus perception that they were iffy prospects during their NHL Entry Draft eligibility. All are interchangeable parts quality at best.

Dwayne Roloson was a weak Jr B goalie at the age of 20:

Efficacy of the NHL Entry Draft. Keeping things simple, using the latest version, 7 rounds, 30 picks per round = 210 players. app 25 goalies drafted per year.

An NHL organization has 50 pro contracts - 23 at the NHL level, 27 in affiliates plus they retain rights to unsigned draftees. So an organizations needs 4-6 goalies signed to pro contracts.

Efficacy is simply a function of how many starters an organization drafts over a fixed period of time. Montreal drafting the likes of Theodore,Garon, Vokoun, Halak, Price between 1994 and 2005 is very impressive.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote